(07-21-2015 06:34 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

The Pac 12 Network is now going to get national coverage. The ACC Network is closer to reality in 2025 than it is in 2017.

The Pac 12 Network could now go to open market if they wanted to. ESPN is already having to deal with mandates to cut expenses. If the Pac 12 Network went to market, then FOX could get another strong partnership put together with another conference network. If ESPN wanted to stop that, they would have to pay big bucks while already being cash strapped.

ESPN is closer to having to file Chapter 11 than they are giving out another multi billion dollar bid for anything.

If ESPN was dead serious on having a network for the ACC very soon, they would simple say, "hey, we are making an ACC Network and will provide the details later." It would take a couple of minutes to write a memo. All we get from the ACC about a network is vague statements that don't even hold any water.

Perhaps the ACC has choices and an ESPN run network is just one of those. The hold up on an ACC Network may be on the ACC side, not ESPN's.

(07-21-2015 07:38 PM)krup Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:27 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 06:23 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I don't see how this is good, bad, or indifferent for an ACC Network. You haters are amusing, because it WILL happen. Deal with it.

Beyond that, I'm actually somewhat excited about this deal. The only problem I had with AT&T's UVerse TV was that I was already use to DirecTV and preferred their menus and guides. If I could get everything I like about DirecTV but WITHOUT the dish that's still prone to shoddy weather, I'd be in hog heaven!

There's a rumor that AT&T is planning to keep dish reception for DirecTV, and move UVerse TV customers to DirecTV so that they can free up bandwidth to deliver more high-speed internet through the pipes.

That makes more sense. Direct TV has been strong in its TV offering, but suffered badly when competing against cable on bundles where the cable could offer much better internet access (it's what got me to switch back to cable).

A bundle of DTV's TV and ATT's wireless data could be formidable.

They already do that in areas that ATT doesn't have strong enough coverage for TV.

(07-22-2015 10:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 08:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I do agree too, with the guy that said it doesn't make sense to push people towards having a dish. Yeah, you'd free up bandwidth, but I just can't see people going for that.

Makes sense to me. The number of U-Verse TV subscribers is small compared to the number of people already on DirecTV, and they can offer them big discounts if necessary to get them to put up a dish. They want to get as many people as possible on AT&T home internet now, and freeing up bandwidth is the way to do it. After they build out even more bandwidth 5-10 years down the road, then they can think about moving all their DirecTV customers off the dish and into the pipes.

I get that, but things aren't going to change over night regardless of the direction they take. As such, it makes more sense to go ahead and leave things as-is for all parties involved until such time as the infrastructure is sufficient enough to bring as many people using a dish now to streaming through the pipes. AT&T has the ability to solve the biggest problem with DirecTV, the dish and it's susceptibility to weather. They're more apt to FIX that problem than COMPOUND it.

Could be ONE BIG DISH and no wires. Just a box in your house.

(07-24-2015 03:28 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 10:05 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 08:04 AM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  I do agree too, with the guy that said it doesn't make sense to push people towards having a dish. Yeah, you'd free up bandwidth, but I just can't see people going for that.

Makes sense to me. The number of U-Verse TV subscribers is small compared to the number of people already on DirecTV, and they can offer them big discounts if necessary to get them to put up a dish. They want to get as many people as possible on AT&T home internet now, and freeing up bandwidth is the way to do it. After they build out even more bandwidth 5-10 years down the road, then they can think about moving all their DirecTV customers off the dish and into the pipes.

I get that, but things aren't going to change over night regardless of the direction they take. As such, it makes more sense to go ahead and leave things as-is for all parties involved until such time as the infrastructure is sufficient enough to bring as many people using a dish now to streaming through the pipes. AT&T has the ability to solve the biggest problem with DirecTV, the dish and it's susceptibility to weather. They're more apt to FIX that problem than COMPOUND it.

They don't have that ability today. They don't have the infrastructure that would be required to move DirecTV customers "into the pipes" en masse. That's a longer-term solution. Their shorter-term solution, if the rumor is correct, is to free up bandwidth currently used for U-Verse TV, to offer higher-speed broadband service to current DirecTV customers in a "triple play" package to compete with cable companies that already offer it.

No, but again, changes aren't going to happen over night regardless.